de la Parte, Louis

English

bepress Legal Repository

Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Florida Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 7 June 1952 Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection Louis de la Parte Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Louis de la Parte, Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection, 5 Fla. L. Rev. 194 (1952). Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol5/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized editor of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact kaleita@law.ufl.edu. DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Sep  8 11:49:44 2022SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnlineCitations:Bluebook 21st ed.			                                                                Louis De La Parte, Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection, 5 U. FLA. L.REV. 194 (1952).                                                                     ALWD 7th ed.                                                                         Louis De La Parte, Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection, 5 U. Fla. L.Rev. 194 (1952).                                                                     APA 7th ed.                                                                          De La Parte, L. (1952). Constitutional law: discrimination in jury selection.University of Florida Law Review, 5(2), 194-195.                                     Chicago 17th ed.                                                                     Louis De La Parte, "Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection," Universityof Florida Law Review 5, no. 2 (Summer 1952): 194-195                                McGill Guide 9th ed.                                                                 Louis De La Parte, "Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection" (1952) 5:2U Fla L Rev 194.                                                                     AGLC 4th ed.                                                                         Louis De La Parte, 'Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection' (1952) 5(2)University of Florida Law Review 194                                                 MLA 9th ed.                                                                          De La Parte, Louis. "Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection."University of Florida Law Review, vol. 5, no. 2, Summer 1952, pp. 194-195.HeinOnline.                                                                          OSCOLA 4th ed.                                                                       Louis De La Parte, 'Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection' (1952) 5 UFla L Rev 194Provided by: University of Florida / Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and    Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License-- The search text of this PDF is generated from  uncorrected OCR text.-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your  license, please use:Copyright Information1de la Parte: Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury SelectionPublished by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 1952CASE COMMENTSCONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DISCRIMINATION IN JURYSELECTIONShepherd v. Florida, 341 U. S. 50 (1951)A Florida circuit court convicted three Negroes of the crime ofrape, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed.1 Before the UnitedStates Supreme Court on certiorari, HELD, defendants were denied dueprocess in the selection of the grand jury which indicted them. Judg-ment reversed in a memorandum decision on the authority of Casselv. Texas.2The Cassel case was the culmination of a series of decisions begin-ning in 1879,3 all of which dealt with methods of jury selection dis-criminating against the Negro race. 4 These cases clearly establishedthe principle that the equal protection clause of the FourteenthAmendment prohibits any action by a state tending systematically toexclude Negroes from serving on grand or petit juries solely becauseof race. Although the earlier cases invalidated state statutes expresslyexcluding Negroes from jury service, 5 the later decisions carefullyscrutinized the procedure by which state officials selected jurors, and'Four Negroes were originally involved in the crime. One was killed while re-sisting arrest; and the jury returned a recommendation of mercy for CharlieGreenlee, who did not join the petition for certiorari. The two petitioners wereshot while allegedly attempting escape in the fall of 1951; Shepherd later diedfrom his wounds.2339 U.S. 282 (1950).3Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879).4Cassel v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950); Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U.S. 413 (1947);Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (1945); Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400 (1942); Smith v.Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940); Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U.S. 354 (1939); Hale v. Ken-tucky, 303 U.S. 613 (1938); Hollins v. Oklahoma, 295 U.S. 394 (1985); Patterson v.Alabama, 294 U.S. 600 (1985); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935); Martin v.Texas, 200 U.S. 316 (1906); Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U.S. 226 (1904); Tarrance v.Florida, 188 U.S. 519 (1903); Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442 (1900); Gibson v.Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 (1896); Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 592 (1896); Bushv. Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110 (1883); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 870 (1881); Ex parteVirginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 813 (1880); Strauder v.West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879).5Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110 (1883); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (1881);Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 39 (1880); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 818 (1880);Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879).[19412Florida Law Review, Vol. 5, Iss. 2 [1952], Art. 7https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol5/iss2/7CASE COMMENTSin so doing condemned actions that, though apparently not expresslyaimed at discrimination, yet in practical effect produced it.6 As farback as 1934 Chief Justice Hughes began the majority opinion inNorris v. Alabama7 by stating, "There is no controversy as to theconstitutional principle involved."In the Cassel case the defendant, a Negro, contended that themethod of selecting the grand jury purposely discriminated againsthis race; and he proffered as evidence of such discrimination the factthat no more than one Negro had been selected on each of twenty-one consecutive grand juries in Dallas County.8 Mr. Justice Reed,for the Court, clarified the question of proportional representationpreviously raised in Akins v. Texas, which had propounded the themethat fairness in selection does not necessarily compel proportionalrepresentation of races on juries.9 He went a step further and pointedout that, not only is proportional representation not required, butthat the Constitution prescribes a jury fairly selected without regardto race. He predicated the reversal of the Texas judgment on thefinding that the jury commissioners had failed to familiarize them-selves thoroughly with the qualifications of all eligible jurors and hadmerely chosen the jury from among their own acquaintances.10Inasmuch as the instant opinion is in memorandum form, thefactual situation as reported by the Florida Supreme Court must beexamined in order to determine which actions of the jury commissionconstituted an infringement of the defendants' constitutional rights.The chairman of the board of county commissioners testified that6E.g., Cassel v. Texas, 839 U.S. 282 (1950); Patton v. Mississippi, 32 U.S. 413(1947); Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398 (1945); Hill v. Texas, 816 U.S. 400 (1942);Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940); Pierre v. Louisiana, 806 U.S. 354 (1939);Hale v. Kentucky, 803 U.S. 613 (1988); Hollis v. Oklahoma, 295 U.S. 894 (1985);Patterson v. Alabama, 296 U.S. 600 (1935); Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1934);Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 (1896).7294 U.S. 587, 589 (1984).8Frankfurter, J., astutely observed in his concurring opinion, 39 U.S. 282, 293(1950): "If one factor is uniform in a continuing series of events that are broughtto pass through human intervention, the law would have to have the blindness ofindifference rather than the blindness of impartiality not to attribute the uniformfactor to man's purpose."9325 U.S. 398 (1945).1OFrankfurter, J., concurring, observed that the lack of more than one Negroon 21 consecutive grand juries indicated that the jury commissioners had mis-interpreted the Akins case to signify that the inclusion of one Negro on each grandjury satisfied the constitutional requirement, 339 U.S. 282, 290 (1950).3de la Parte: Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury SelectionPublished by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 1952

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3773&context=flr

Constitutional Law: Discrimination in Jury Selection

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

University of Florida Levin College of Law